January 14, 2008

We've talked about this before — the Kos effort to get Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney — but there's a video going around that I thought you might want to talk about. Actually, I found it pretty funny, and I like Mitt Romney (as much as any of the other politicians in this crazy election):

At Kos, they're saying: "Michigan, do you want this primary season to be over? Or do you want this primary season to be... hilarious?" The trouble with hilarity is you never know if you're going to get the last laugh.

66 comments:

While I can sympathize with Matt's position (it's basically my position vis-a-vis Hillary), I think one of his commenters hits the nail squarely on the head in observing that "if you vote for Romney, you're actually voting for Romney delegates at the Republican convention. And-- if the convention is brokered, and Romney is out of contention-- who will these delegates tend to favor? Not Huckabee, and probably not McCain either." That's exactly right - it should be born in mind that while who "wins" a state is useful in terms of grabbing headlines, raising funds and so forth, what counts are delegates, and Romney is presently leading on that score despite "losing" both IA and NH.

Simon,Thank you. People seem to forget that the delegates are the important factor here. Most seem to think that the popularity contest is the real campaign. It is the delegates who will chose the final candidate, not the voters. Unless there is only one standing before the convention.

Why, Ann, why?! Why must you continue to express favor (or at the very least indifference) to Mitt Romney? It's hardly encouraging.

He's a crooked liar, and coming from a lawyer that is intended to be doubly insulting. You've had Bill and Hillary pegged for so long, to say that I'm surprised would be an understatement. Then again, I went through this same loss of faith with Andrew Sullivan. I hope this time it's only temporary.

If the folks at koss had any brains they would vote for Huck in the Michigan primary.

I think that Huck is a weaker candidate nationally than Mitt. Plus if Huck did become President, the Democratic Congress isn't going to give hime any paleo-conservative bills to sign. He would be happy to sign lots of stuff the Democrats do want though. The Democrats would get an easy to ridicule Republican, plus manage to get a fair amount of their agenda through. Win. Win.

Personally, as someone who has only voted for Democrats in the short period of time since I have been able to vote, I disagree with the "Romney is the least dangerous candidate" talk, and I think many others do as as well.

To me, the only candidate more dangerous would be Huckabee, because I think his ideas would be the most dangerous. Romney is dangerous to me because he appears ready to do anything to pander to whoever he feels helps him the most politically. As much as I may disagree with many of Rudy and McCain's views, I don't see that as being much of a problem with them. I see them as the Republican candidates most likely to do what they think is right in a given situation, regardless of whether or not it goes against the Republican base thinking. As such, although I obviously would rather have a Democrat win the election, those two are the ones I would be least displeased to see in the White House.

James,Is it just coincidence, though, that the two you pick out as the most palatable also happen to be the two most socially liberal candidates? Granted, McCain's social liberalism is greatly exagerrated by those more hostile to him than I, but indisputably he is for embryonic stem cell research, amnesty, and (although not strictly in the same category) restrictions on political speech.

Faith may be too strong of a word. I'll put it this way - I started reading his blog long before he became obsessed with torture, Ron Paul, and the so-called "politics of hope". I thought hey, a conservative who actually understands that the federal government has no business telling anyone how to live when they let live. At the time, I thought maybe I'd found a kindred spirit. And then his tendency toward rational thought left the building.

middle class guy said: Really. How is Mitt Romeny crooked. Is their some type of corruption scandal we do not know about? As to him being a liar, he may be disingenuous, but a liar? Compared to Hillary Clinton, the guy is honest as the day is long.

First of all, it's extremely unfair to throw either of the Clintons out there for comparison. That's like saying "compared to Hitler, Rick Santorum is tolerant." Ooh, misbalanced analogies are fun. "Compared to the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post is sensible and fair." Let's keep it going, folks.

Also, I won't accuse Romney of any personal or corporate corruption - not that I think he's above it, I just don't know of any, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

Finally, disingenuous is just a fancy way to describe a lying SOB with the clever ability to pull it off and fool people in the process. Romney has been lying repeatedly since he began his campaign for the nomination. (1) As far as his "flip-flops" are concerned - people are allowed to change their position, but there's really nothing beyond his own stump speeches to support the existence of his change of heart/mind. (2)He constantly abuses the other candidates by twisting their words and their records. (3)Oftentimes, you can find a youtube clip somewhere showing him praising the very idea he was ripping them for. (4)Sometimes he just flat-out lies. (e.g., the time Romney vehemently denied that one of his many attack ads called McCain’s immigration bill "amnesty," even though the ad does. Apparently the "and I support this message" part does not mean that you actually vetted it.) But the part that makes me hate him the most is the fact that he is using race-baiting and xenophobia to promote his own candidacy, especially since I don't think he really believes his own BS about immigration. You can give me all the reasons in the world that McCain's immigration bill was a bad idea (you can't, however, tell me that it wasn't better than the status quo as far as border security is concerned, so let's just trash that red herring), and you can argue that claims of racism or xenophobia behind the anti-immigrant movement are trite liberal stand-bys, but you can't tell me that before this election started Romney gave a flying eff about illegal immigration.

Oh, and just look at how much all the other candidates despise him. Truly, it's a brilliant thing to behold. The cordiality between the non-Rom candidates and the hostility toward good ol' Mitt was a sight to be seen. They can't all be wrong, right?

You can give me all the reasons in the world that McCain's immigration bill was a bad idea (you can't, however, tell me that it wasn't better than the status quo as far as border security is concerned, so let's just trash that red herring)

Just because you think McCain's amnesty bill was a self-evident improvement over the status quo doesn't mean that the rest of us are obligated to think so.

The status-quo is that illegals have no right to live or work here, but little is done to enforce that rule. As unfortunate as that circumstance is, it is vastly preferable to legalizing them while paying lip service to border enforcement -- the McCain/Kennedy plan.

James-You seem to be saying that you think pandering is a bad thing. Our current President is notoriously a non-pandering, head-in-the-sand, I'm the Decider, damn-the-polls, go-it-alone, consensus buster and takes a lot of flak for it. He doesn't typically get a lot of praise for standing his ground. Are you going to sing the praises of George W's stalwart determination?

KB,It is not unfair to throw the Clintons out there. Hillary is running on her thirty five year record of accomplishment, yet there is no record other than medicority. So we have the honesty faactor. Is Hillary Clinton honest? It is not a misbalanced analogy. It is like to like, sort of. We know the Clintons are dishonest.

If we applied your definition of disingenuous- a lying SOB with the clever ability to pull it off and fool people in the process- it would fit the Clintons to a tee, especially Bill.

As to corruption, you stated crooked liar, not just liar. Crooked implies not just dishonesty, but corruuption- in real speak he is a thief and a liar. So is he?

As to flip flopping, please name one of the candidates who has not changed their position on anything. They all have. Every single one of them. There is not one who has stayed on a consistent philosophical or ideological course, at least publicly. So Mitt is no better or no worse than the rest.

Campaign tactics are just that. They all accuse each other of things and they all prey upon minor inconsistencies. That is politics. It is just the way they all are.

If you are going to make blatant accusations like crooked liar, you should at least have something to back them up. Otherwise they are just meaningless.

Simon - Obviously, that plays a part in my decision-making. However, I am not pro-Feingold/McCain, and not quite sure of where I stand on the immigration issue. However, I do think the Tancredo-esque "throw them all out and build a big fence" stance simply doesn't work, and I do believe there needs to be some concessions in any immigration policy.

Jeremy-

If there is one thing I'm willing to give W credit for, it is that. It just so happens that on the majority of the issues on which he takes such stances, I strongly disagree with the stance. My perception of Romney's pandering is that he would take stances that I clearly disagree with, and, unlike the other candidates, I would be forced to doubt whether he actually believes in those stances or whether he is simply doing it for personal political gain.

Like I said, as someone who is almost certainly going to vote for the Democratic candidate (unless somehow Edwards pulls off the greatest upset of all time, as I cannot stand him), I won't be thrilled with a Republican candidate. I just think, from my own personal standpoint, Rudy and McCain would be the ones I would rather see, instead of Huckabee or Romney.

"As to flip flopping, please name one of the candidates who has not changed their position on anything. They all have. Every single one of them. There is not one who has stayed on a consistent philosophical or ideological course, at least publicly. So Mitt is no better or no worse than the rest."

Sorry, MCG, but this doesn't follow. It's one thing to expect a candidate to be relatively consistent and honest about his positions (that includes when/why he changes them), but it's another thing entirely to expect a candidate to never change a position.

You can't equate the two.

And in any case, wasn't it you who brought up the Clintons? Seems the same situation: if Romney is "honest as the day is long" compared to the Clintons, and McCain is "honest as the day is long" compared to Romney ...

In the end they're all politicians, but there are *degrees* of slimy.

In conclusion, if Mitt Romney has a milkshake and Mike Huckabee has a milkshake ...

Revenant - I'm pretty sure I qualified my statement re: the status quo with "as far as border security is concerned." I wanted to call Romney's fact-checkers just to confirm, but kept getting the answering service for Western Wats instead.

And if you really think the other candidates hate Romney because he's the "front-runner" (ha!), and not because he's a first class jerk with no integrity, or at the very least because of the barrage of inaccurate and misleading attack ads he "approves," then you've got a "love my candidate" blindspot only a Ron Paul supporter could love, my friend.

James said..."I am not pro-Feingold/McCain, and not quite sure of where I stand on the immigration issue. However, I do think the Tancredo-esque "throw them all out and build a big fence" stance simply doesn't work, and I do believe there needs to be some concessions in any immigration policy."

I'd hope there's bipartisan consensus on that much. ;) One of the things I lament about McCain-Kennedy is that they've very effectively co-opted the term "comprehensive reform"; it's a clever strategy, because it implies that any alternative is piecemeal, and puts those of us who want comprehensive reform that looks nothing like McCain-Kennedy's amnesty approach on the defensive (one always ends up having to resage any remarks with "now, when I say comprehensive reform, I don't mean...").

And if you really think the other candidates hate Romney because he's the "front-runner" (ha!), and not because he's a first class jerk with no integrity, or at the very least because of the barrage of inaccurate and misleading attack ads he "approves," then you've got a "love my candidate" blindspot only a Ron Paul supporter could love, my friend.

First of all, I'm not a Romney supporter. My choices are, in order of decreasing preference, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, voting for Moon Unit Zappa, Clinton, Obama, fleeing to New Zealand, McCain, Edwards, Huckabee, joining Al Qaeda while they're still hiring, and Paul.

Secondly, McCain has a widely-known and well-deserved reputation as an self-serving egotist and raging asshole, yet the other candidates seem to get along with him well enough. Why? Simple: because he's currently losing. It is easy to me magnanimous to a rival when his campaign is going nowhere fast. It isn't because they actually *like* the worthless son of a bitch.

Thirdly, McCain has been airing misleading and inaccurate attack ads, too. Heck, the people behind Romney's attack ads used to WORK for McCain!

Finally, while I did indeed miss your caveat about border security, I disagree that McCain's bill wouldn't have been worse in that regard. Amnesties (or the promise of amnesties) always lead to an increase in illegal immigration. McCain also opposed building the border wall after it had already been approved, so in that sense his desires were also worse than the status quo.

With the possible exception of Richardson, Romney probably is the most qualified of all the candidates (successful executive experience in private, public, and hybrid (Olympic) sectors) on paper, but the waffling is a concern. I haven't decided yet, but I will say this: given Kos's record of beclowned boobery, pushing Mitt in Mich. is likely to help the GOP.

If someone manufactures ringleaders with hinges, send one to the far left.

I do think the Tancredo-esque "throw them all out and build a big fence" stance simply doesn't work, and I do believe there needs to be some concessions in any immigration policy.

I don't think many people have seriously suggested mass deportations of all current illegals, although I suppose Tancredo might have.

The serious suggestion that is normally made is rock-solid border enforcement (yes, including a wall or fence -- they work) combined with stricter domestic policies that will reduce the current population of illegals through attrition. On the "deportation" side that means things like actually deporting illegal immigrants when they are arrested for other crimes or otherwise come to the attention of law enforcement authorities; on the "attrition" side it means making life here less convenient and attractive for illegal immigrants than it currently is, so they are prompted to "deport" themselves, such implementing a better system for distinguishing citizens from non-citizens.

It isn't, as amnesty supporters claimed, a choice between amnesty and shoving 15 million Mexicans into south-bound cattle cars. There are plenty of ways to gradually get the illegals out of the country without either doing it all at once, or giving up and granting them permission to stay.

And McCain loves war and the USA being Nanny/Policeman of the world. McCain loves the NYT op-ed page. McCain loves massive imports and big trade deficits. And most of all, John McCain loves John McCain.

That any conservative or Republican would love or even vote for McCain is insane.

I will be voting for McCain tomorrow, just as I did in the Michigan primary in 2000. I don't like some of his views, especially on McCain/Feingold, but I trust him more than any others.

My mom called up to tell me to vote for Romney, he is leading in the polls. For a while, I thought of voting in the dem primary for uncommitted, to embarass St. Hillary. I just wonder if having Romney around attacking Republicans will have any effect on the general election. Seems like people are paying more attention to the slurs between Clinton and Obama than to Mitt's ads.

rcocean said..."That any conservative or Republican would love or even vote for McCain is insane."

The question's who can win the nomination and go on to beat Hillary. The bottom line is that if the base doesn't abandon him, McCain wins 40 states against anyone the dems put up, and he can beat Huckabee. And that ain't nout.

McCain is unelectable. In the general election, He'd be a cranky, old geezer trying to remind everyone that "he's a war hero, dammit". Unable to answer either the Clinton attack machine or Obama's message of Hope/Change, he'll go down to defeat.

He's nothing more than Bob ("where's the outrage") Dole ala '96 with the added burden of being at war with conservatives and the Republican base. And an odd love for the New York Times and liberal democrats.

McCain is anything but unelectable, and he's the strongest general election candidate that the GOP has right now (I'm assuming the top three are Romney, McCain and Huckabee, which is what the polls and voting up until this point say). Speaking as a Democrat, he's the guy I'd be most concerned about going up against.

That having been said, his views on a lot of issues aren't popular with big portions of the GOP base. Here's a listing of anti-McCain talking points I saw posted by someone on redstate.com, cleaned up for a family website like this one:

McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.McCain voted for McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform.McCain voted for human embryonic stem cell research.McCain thinks pharmaceutical companies are bad guys and voted for Sarbanes-Oxley.McCain is against repealing the estate tax.McCain supports government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.McCain voted against drilling in Anwar.McCain would raise social security taxes.McCain would allow illegal immigrants to stay indefinitely in the US after paying a fine.McCain opposes waterboarding as an interrogation technique.McCain thinks being chummy and cooperating with Ted Kennedy is cool.

The bottom line is that if the base doesn't abandon him, McCain wins 40 states against anyone the dems put up

Um... "if"? The Republican base abandoned McCain years ago, Simon.

He might win, narrowly, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, if only because Republican voters hate Hillary even more than they hate McCain. But against, say, Obama, McCain hasn't got a chance in hell. Republican voters will stay away in droves. :)

The bottom line is that if the base doesn't abandon him, McCain wins 40 states against anyone the dems put up

I think tha McCain would have a better chance of winning than any other Republican candidate, but he'd win 40 states? Which 9 states that Kerry won do you think he would take (assuming he holds all those GWB won and not counting DC as a state)?

"McCain is unelectable. In the general election, He'd be a cranky, old geezer trying to remind everyone that "he's a war hero, dammit". Unable to answer either the Clinton attack machine or Obama's message of Hope/Change, he'll go down to defeat."

of all the republicans running, mccain is the most difficult to attack for democrats. attack him on the war? hah! immigration? it's more of a republican issue. climate change? stem cell research? his views here are in the mainstream.

rudy will wilt under tremendous MSM scrutiny. the Clinton attack machine doesn't even have to make an appearance.

i don't believe romney is a conservative. do you? he will say anything that will get him elected. he slammed mccain on CAFE standards, but he complained about lack of fuel efficiency standards as late as two years ago. he slammed reagan when he and ted kennedy were trying to outdo each other on who is more liberal.

huckabee? just listening to him speak on foreign policy makes me queasy.

fred? mccain makes fred look old. and nobody outside the conservative base is in the mood to elect thompson, after 8 years of bush.

mccain's the only republican who can defend iraq with great crediblity. he's the only one who can salvage iraq. he's the most trusted and credible candidate on both sides that are running for office.

clinton is hated and not trusted by many. and obama's the liberal huckabee, no experience on foreign policy and national security. hasn't done much.

the democrats has two issue in this election: iraq and the economy. having mccain as nominee not only takes the iraq issue off the table, the issue becomes an advantage for republicans. of course if you're an economy guy, you go for romney, but everybody hates this phony. he certainly won't get a free pass from the MSM.

He's nothing more than Bob ("where's the outrage") Dole ala '96 with the added burden of being at war with conservatives and the Republican base. And an odd love for the New York Times and liberal democrats.

dole lost because in the 90s, americans took a "holiday from history". mccain is the perfect candidate for post 9/11 america.

You forgot health care and education. Most importantly, you forgot the #1 thing Democrats have going for them: they aren't Republicans. Polls routinely show that the general public currently trusts Democrats more than Republicans on practically EVERY issue.

In order to win, the Republicans need a candidate who really convinces people that he's the man for the job. Why pick McCain? He's old, he lacks energy, and his politics are a mix of things the public doesn't like (support for the war) and things they can get from a Democrat (environmentalism, complaints about torture, etc). Why pick him? There isn't any reason for independents or Democrats to prefer him to an Obama or a Hillary.

REVENANT,The Democrats only have one issue, Iraq. Democrats historically have ruined our economy. What do they offer? Will they cut taxes? No. They offer scams and frauds like tax credits or deductions. Remember, Bill Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. Do they offer to create a healthy environment for business to prosper? No, they hate corporate profits and want to enact windfall taxes on high profits to pay for entitlement programs. The Democrats know nothing about economics. They only want to punish prosperity and diminish opportunity.

As to health care, they will do nothing. If they were serious, we would have the same plan that Congressmen and Senators have; unlimited, unrestricted health care. Any doctor, any hospital any where in the world, even experimental procedures are covered. They will not let us have that. You see the servants of the people have better health care than the people who have to pay for it. They do not want to give up their perks. Oh, and before you vetch, that health care plan was passed by Democrats led by the chief thief and crook, Dan Rostenkowski.

No, sir, the Democrats will not save the economy. They will ruin it. Like Carter did, like Clinton almost did, and like LBJ did. We have lost manufacturers and other businesses to foreign competition because of the Democrats and their onerous regulatory policies that were passed during their forty year reign of economic terror.

The one candidate that stands apart is Fred Thompson. He's a policy wonk, understands and respects the constituion, has sound fiscal ideas, and his national defence and immigration policies are appealing to Repubs across the board. He has none of the drawbacks that all the other candidates have.

But most impressive is his refusal to pander. He is clearly the one candidate with the most integrity in either party.

He needs to rally in SC and get the exposure he needs to break open the floodgates of Repubs that will flock too him as soon as he appears to be a contender.

I don't know why, but while McCain seems old and frail to me, Fred doesn't. Fred seems like a grumpy old grandpa but the sort where the grumpy is mostly a put-on because the grandkids love to squeal and run laughing to hide behind the couch. And he'll sit and do quiet grandpa things and not interfere with your play just for the sake of it.

we may survive bush but by a whisker..now you want another bush?or would even consider the potential?

this guy will say anything to anyone for a vote and you all know it. his consistency factor is mush.

i loved the part yesterday when he said "my father ran an auto company" like it was some mom and pop...so the common guy would relate to him. this is the "brainwashed" dad and this tiny acorn didn't fall far from the tree.

One of the more interesting things about this thread was KB claiming about Romney that "He's a crooked liar, and coming from a lawyer that is intended to be doubly insulting". Without any suggestion of proof that Romney had ever done anything crooked in his life. It seems that the standard practice on the left now is to claim that anyone on the right must be crooked and a liar, regardless of any facts. It is either that it is assumed that someone must be crooked and/or a liar to be a Republican, and/or that this sort of claim has become so common in the left side of the blogosphere that KB didn't realize that it wouldn't go unchallenged here.

I have long wondered if this didn't result, at least some, from projection from having supported Bill Clinton, esp. now that his wife is running this time around. There though, I think that many here can make a case that the "crooked liar" applies more readily to the Clintons than anyone else involved in this election. Bill, of course, lost his law license for five years and was impeached for lying under oath, while Hillary has a string of crooked actions stretching back to taking bribes for her husband lightly hidden as cattle futures and forward to selling presidential pardons for campaign and library contributions.

You seem to be saying that you think pandering is a bad thing. Our current President is notoriously a non-pandering, head-in-the-sand, I'm the Decider, damn-the-polls, go-it-alone, consensus buster and takes a lot of flak for it. He doesn't typically get a lot of praise for standing his ground. Are you going to sing the praises of George W's stalwart determination?

McCain is basically running on "4 more years" of Bush's management style. Not surprising given the jet fighter jock mentality of the two pilots, though Bush I escaped it's effects.

*******************George has a string of statements that need a little correcting:

Interesting that Romney has not lived in Michigan since 1965 when he was 18.

That is what 4 years of college, 2 1/2 years living a monastic life in a French slum, then grad school will get you. His initial intent was to return to Detroit. His MBA thesis was on organizational process inprovements to the automotive industry. Then his exceptional grades steered him into doing corporate law or management consultancy and his best opportunities were not in Michigan. You work where you live, but most of us have some affection and ties to our homestate. As Mitt's Dad was 3-time Governor, and Mitt barnstormed with him everywhere, Mom ran for Senator, and family is still in state - he has roots.

1. Mitt Romney was worth more than his Dad by his mid-30s. (CEOs didn't make anywhere the money they do today and George Romney was famous for returning the "excess" in his compensation, 40%, to the AMC treasurer). He asked his Mom& Dad that his inheritance be given to charity. He inherited nothing, nor did his Dad help Mitt or any of his other kids with a check from daddy as they started their careers.

2. He is worth around 350 million, plus a philanthropic trust of some 100 million off to the side, and he typically tithed away or gave charity amounting to 13-16% of his annual income most his life. A life that he calls "frugal".

3. His income comes from management consulting, direct investment but no management VC arrangements with some firms, and direct management contribution in some firms with stock in return for that and VC infusion of cash. Not in the ranks of leveraged buy-out corporate raiders. Bain does not seek complete control with them functioning as a Holding company, They prefer partnershipping.

How his background appeals to out-of-work manufacturing workers escapes me....

It might have to do with his past successes turning around other failed firms or industries and creating jobs.

Whereas both Obama and McCain have notably never held a full-time job in the private business sector all their lives.

Which of the 3 would you prefer to be President?

Finance guys don't generally have a lot of heart for grubby line workers....

Well, I suppose you then go with Hillary, who unlike Obama and McCain once actually worked in private industry. She was even a line worker. Gutting fish in Alaska to pay for her summer trip. Lasted a half day on the line.

Or, you go with a guy that knows the industry and says it can recover....

I notice the Giuliani's name is mentioned but 3 times in this comment thread.

Does anyone suspect he is no longer viable? If he flounders now, there'll be a lot of finger-pointing regarding his "strategy" of ignoring the first couple of contests.

Regarding Romney and Michigan, I will say that having one party trying to cloud the issue in another party's primary is a tactic as old as the Republic. This -- like the Clinton/Obama race kerfuffle -- is a non-issue that's out there only because pundits have to talk about something. Then partisans pick up the talk because they are axe-grinding. It's gonna be a long 10+ months 'til election day.

With respect to Rudy and his strategy, would he have been better off if he had tried to compete in the early contests to keep his name alive, spent a lot of his money campaigning and on TV spots, and then to have gotten trounced?

Rudy and Thompson have put themselves into an interesting position. What happens to the poor performer in SC -- assuming it's one of them and Huckabee takes 2nd? Can either at that point argue viability with those who donate if they are 3rd in South Carolina?

MadisonMan said..."I notice the Giuliani's name is mentioned but 3 times in this comment thread. Does anyone suspect he is no longer viable? If he flounders now, there'll be a lot of finger-pointing regarding his "strategy" of ignoring the first couple of contests."

Not necessarily - this has been his strategy all along. Ignore the early states where he isn't so competitive and look for a knockout punch on Feb. 5th. We won't know whether it's worked until (at the earliest) Feb. 6th.

Romney says he has not given up on the auto industry, etc. etc. Not enough voters believe that any more.

As you acknowledge, he himself fled the state for work in another industry after college. People know that.

Romney's fallen in the polls in the past few days.

He's not so different from Chrysler's chief Nardelli, another out-of-state finance guy who has no industry experience...

"Late last year, Mr. Nardelli rattled employees by declaring the company to be “operationally bankrupt” because it could not tap credit markets....The resulting uproar forced Chrysler to issue a statement saying that it had “ample liquidity."

George - His second problem--He's too elite to close the sale with enough average Joes.(His former chauffeur says he's a fine man in an op-ed piece in the NY Times today. Disastrous. If I were running against Romney, I'd use that against him in a TV ad to show how out of touch he is.)

You grossly and likely mischaracterize the op-ed as coming from his CHAUFFEUR.The man writing the op-ed is Dean Barnett, a superb lawyer and writer, who based his article on being a campaign volunteer for Romney back in his 1994 Senate campaign against Teddy, and getting to be his driver for a while and watching Mitt Romney's effort.

Dean is a graduate of Harvard and BU. He slowed down due to cystic fibrosis and never thought he would make it to 40, was so bad off he was down and waiting on a double lung transplant, but who has recovered significantly after new therapy.

I liked Barnett's article because it confirmed what I knew of Romney in my MBA circles. A very nice man, high energy, unfailingly gracious and never said a personal slam against Teddy. Barnett said the same words about his abilities as two MBAs that dealt with him at Bain - said. He has electric intelligence. The two I know also said Romney thinks several moves ahead, has absorbed the financials and spreadsheets yet deeply believes that good decisions come from consultation which also appears to help shape his judgement of who might best be assigned to certain jobs and do them well.

Barnett also has the same critique of Romney I had. That while he is very conservative and religious - he tried - actually overtried wanting to be accepted despite his religion - moving too far to the Religious Right. And he came across as phony when the real Mitt Romney is anything but phony.

I liken it to a great guy who is wonderful company suddenly wanting to date a gal so bad - that he badly overcompensates for things he believes she will turn him down for and manages to come across as an asshole who is nothing like he really is.

Romney got himself in this bad pickle on his own or through a bad consulting strategy. Fortunately, he can turn it around and get voters to conclude he is authentic because he still has a long time to correct his missteps of trying to do an impression of a Georgia good 'ol boy and pop the bubble of McCain and his media worshippers.

But he did a serious boo-boo because misimpressions of character tend to cling longer than getting nailed with some really stupid flubs or ideas.

The title of the op-ed is "Driving Mr. Romney," a comical allusion to "Driving Miss Daisy."

Yes, the author of the piece is an attorney and conservative commentator, but he was the man's servant!

Surely the arch liberal op-ed page editors of the New York Times gave the essay its title to humiliate both him and the Romney campaign.

I absolutely will agree with you that Gov. Romney is smart as heck and probably a great guy, but he lacks the common touch that really great politicians like FDR and Reagan had and that Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) has.

Regardless of whether or not that is true, the public doesn't believe it is true. Voters currently trust Democrats on economic issues more than they trust Republicans. Furthermore, the last Democratic President remains extremely popular, while the last Republican President voters liked left office nearly 20 years ago.

If you think the only issue Democrats have is Iraq, you have your head in the sand. The Democratic candidate can win in 2008 just by not being a Republican. The Republican candidate needs to convince people to go against their current inclination to pull the "D" lever.